You said your photo came out looking dark. The one on flickr looks dark and saturated to me in everything but the whites in the clothing which are almost off the edge. The rest of the clothing is somewhat dark and very saturated. What I see might be a little off from what they see, but it's definitely on the darker side. I can't see the printed version or an approximative scan of it, so I don't know how the two compare.
I could spend paragraphs telling you how wrong this is. Grab a sheet of the brightest, glossiest paper you can find. Take a look at a brand new laptop display cranked all the way up. Tell me which is brighter. Not only that, the display has a significantly higher contrast ratio. Prints top out at maybe 350:1 on the best paper stocks. Also displays shift and dim over time, and prints look different depending on the lighting (which is why there are viewing booths). These are not top notch displays. They're good when measured against other laptop displays. They aren't meant for critical judgement. If you set them up well, they're close enough to ballpark it. Professional photographers often use them for on the spot judgements in conjunction with the histograms which give an idea of the value distribution with their processing settings applied as it falls within in their reference gamut.
Regarding how they're manufactured, these are mass produced items. If you want one where they measured every bit of the screen within X tolerance with a radiometric device, they start around $2k and end over 20. The macbook pro displays are TN panels, the same type used in cheap desktop displays. They've gotten way way better than what they were, but they are far from perfect (just like displays in general).